Yeah, there's a known problem with smart, technical people approaching fields about which they know very little. The analysis, to a third party, often sounds smart (the author is undeniably smart!), but without having expert context, you miss why it's so, so, so wrong.
And I'm not even an economics expert. I've just read more about it, or read more critically, than geohot. And I can tell you he's wrong, not because he's an outsider but because his analysis does not make sense.
Copernicus had well-reasoned, self-consistent arguments that incorporated previous models, and produced better results. This doesn't. There is a rubric for how one should score outsider contributions, even if you want to allow for revolutions in a particular field. This essay doesn't rise to that level.
In fact, it matches the first pattern -- smart person outside their field, makes ass of self -- much better.